Tuesday, Feb 8, 2011, 12:58 pm

President Barack Obama speaks at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on February 7 in Washington, D.C. He talked about the importance of working together on job creation and growing the economy. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Many in the labor movement objected to President Barack Obama speaking at the Chamber of Commerce yesterday. Yet there was little protest from AFL-CIO leaders to the president's speech.

For the first time, President Obama ventured over to the Chamber of Commerce to speak. While the speech was full of the usual platitudes of most Obama speeches, what mattered most was not what he said, but the speech's symbolism. By speaking at the Chamber, President Obama was offering an olive branch to the very organization that has led attacks against him.

The president defended some of his regulatory agenda and tax policies. He also called on CEOs to create more jobs in America. But he made no mention of the Chamber’s tolerance of unionbusting policies that lead to nearly 30,000 reported cases of unfair labor practices against U.S. workers by companies every year.

The symbolism of the speech upset many in the labor community. Ralph Nader wrote an open letter to the President suggesting “What about walking next door and visiting your political friends at the headquarters of the AFL-CIO, whose member unions represent millions of working Americans? You can discuss with Richard Trumka, a former coal miner and the new president of the AFL-CIO, your campaign promises in 2008. Repeatedly you said to the American people that you supported the “card check” and a “federal minimum wage of $9.50 in 2011.”

The AFL CIO neither organized a protest of the president’s speech nor extended an invitation for the president to cross the street and speak at the AFL CIO headquarters (where Obama has never given a speech).

Two unions—the National Nurses Union/California Nurse Association (CNA) and the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE), though, did organize a protest of the president’s speech at the Chamber. Both unions, it should be noted, have traditionally been more politically independent of the Democratic Party. Both unions endorsed Ralph Nader in his 2000 presidential run (At that time the CNA hadn't merged with other unions).

Following his mantra “The President doesn’t communicate well with me in the press,” AFL-CIO President Trumka refused to denounce President Obama in remarks on MSNBC. In fact, Trumka disagreed with IAM (machinists union) President Thomas Buffenbarger's remark that “this isn’t a truce with business. I think he capitulated.” Instead, Trumka defended the president’s speech. He also praised the selection of former JPMorgan Chase Director William Daley as Chief of Staff, suggesting his selection might make things better for organized labor.

Why is organized labor’s top leader so unwilling to criticize the Chamber of Commerce appearance?

One CNA official told me that the AFL CIO was hesitant to protest the Chamber as a result of their rare joint statement last month in which they endorsed increased spending on infrastructure program. The AFL CIO, it seems, is hoping that by teaming up with the Chamber, it has a better chance of seeing Congress pass funding to keep its members employed and its unions financially solvent and vibrant.

But I can't help worrying that by teaming up with the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO is undermining energy the labor movement needs to win the war against the country's business class.

Advocacy in the interests of our working class constituencies is precisely the kind of altruism that should inform our democracy. Acting with unselfish regard for others doesn't always come naturally, especially in labor management relations. Important health, safety, and labor standards have been fought for and won by the collective action of a strong labor movement. Our rights to organize to continue to fight for the right to care for one another and hold government accountable for being a good steward of the taxes we pay is being threatened by Obama's deregulation dance with the Chamber of Commerce.
Ralph Nader's open letter to Trumka awakens the troubled conscience of all workers who supported Obama's candidacy, and he calls the question eloquently: "...businesses of all sizes have received a variety of tax breaks during this windfall period of a stagnant federal minimum wage. Isn't it time for some equity for the people?"
We can't afford to let the president forget who brought him to the dance. So, here we have it: a funny thing happened on the way to the punch bowl. Obama's apparently lost his dance card and we've got to hold him accountable for finding his way back. As human beings, we're hardwired to survive, but we cannot stand silent and be complicit with deregulation that serves greed to the detriment of the workers who built our great nation.
Obama's, (and any other candidate for political office), acceptance of labor support must be conditional and we are right to demand respect. Instead Obama's apparently allowing big business to exploit the crack in what should be a solid concrete wall of labor unity. Kudos to the protestor whose righteous concern is to "salvage the dignity of the labor movement."
Our nation's needs are identical with labor's needs — decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures; conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and reflect caring and compassion in our community. Business benefits from an educated, healthy workforce. They don't share the benefits fairly with the workers who produce their wealth without a demand. Trumka knows this! He should spend more time at the shop floor water cooler and less time at the Chamber's punch bowl.
Mr. Trumka and President Obama should stand in solidarity with their brothers and sisters, and reflect a loud, clear voice on behalf of labor. The absence of that one voice is tragic because it may be the decisive one for tipping the balance back toward a growing economy. It takes COURAGE to speak truth to power. Nader, UE, and NNU nurses have it, the people of Egypt found it; let's hope Obama and Trumka find it too.
To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, from an address to the AFL-CIO in 1961, our ..."moral appeal has been flickering, not shining as it did in its dynamic days of growth. This conference, a united expression of varied branches of labor, reaffirms that the trade union movement is part of forward-looking America."Posted by RN4MERCY on 2011-02-13 14:15:40

Duane: it's difficult to respond to your comment, since it's not at all clear to whom you are responding and if you are responding to me, you are not accurately reflecting my point.
I certainly do not say that Democrats are the problem, and I'm not at all sure what you mean by "fixating on Obama".
What I do believe is that labor should have an independent policy existence and that we should support or oppose the actions of politicians to the extent that their actions are good or bad for working people.
The present state of affairs is that the labor movement - to the extent that such a thing exists at all, has become effectively an arm - a wholely owned subsidiary - of the Democratic party. We are so fearful of the Republicans - with rather good reason, one must admit - that we offer the Democrats unconditional support regardless of their policy positions. Meanwhile, the ultra conservatives, by making their support of Republicans at least somewhat conditional, have been able to shift the entire political spectrum far to the right. One could make a legitimate case that the Obama administration is operating well to the right of Nixon and far to the right of Eisenhower. which is simply a reflection of how far our politics have moved to the right.
The political system - any system for that matter - works best when all the actors fulfill their proper roles. The role of officeholders is to govern, which necessarily involves compromise. But the role of advocacy groups, like unions and environmental organizations, is to advocate for the interest of our members and our constituencies. When we fail to play that role, when we see our role as supporting a particular politician or party regardless of how they affect our members, we are abdicating our proper role, leading inevitably to a sick system.Posted by Chico David RN on 2011-02-12 18:09:09

Your position that Trumka should challenge Obama and the prior position that working with the Democrats is the problem.Well, this argument has been around for at least 30 years. And, I grant that it has some merit.However, lets look at its actual implementation. What has been the effect of the November election of a Republican house? We have 15 million unemployed - and little chance for a stimulus. African Americans have a 15.6% unemployment rate. In major states there are direct assaults against labor. See Wisconsin and Missouri for this week. Even in Democratic controlled states such as New York and California there are assaults against public sector unions and workers pensions.
So, your argument is that the Democrats are the problem.
The financial crisis of 2007 to the present is an assault on organized labor, working people, and our democracy. To date the corporate class is winning. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report and numerous books detail the origins and the processes of the crisis on Wall Street.
While Wall Street has recovered and returned to profitability, working people continue to suffer a 15 million unemployment, with at least 10 million more under employed. It is more than a crisis - the reality is that the financial class has looted the U.S. economy.
In 2010-2011 the crisis is hitting state and local governments hard. The AFL-CIO is tracking this assault at http://www.aflcio.org/issues/states/. Conservative forces, the Republicans, the Tea Party, and others use the crisis in the states to launch aggressive campaigns against public sector unions and the salaries and pensions of public sector workers.
I am not arguing that the Democrats are our saviors. Robert Kuittner does a good job in Presidency in Peril.
Kuttner traces the role of key financial advisors from Robert Rubin of Citi Bank, and the many major crooks of Goldman Sachs who have made billions off of this crisis. This is finance capital’s relentless class war against the rest of us while it continues to profit from the economic crisis. Their demands for unconscionable tax breaks for the rich to while they refuse to rescue the bankrupted states and municipalities thus forcing budget cuts that decimate schools, force lay offs of nurses and health care workers, police, and firefighters and now they even dare to propose cutting social security while preventing banking regulation to stop the reckless behavior that plunged the country and the world into the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
Kuttner’s perspective of a failing administration is further confirmed by the change to a new set of economic advisors in late 2010 and 2011 advanced the financial corporate agenda in the Obama Administration and further distanced the Administration from a labor and/or progressive perspective. The appointments of Austan Goolsbee. Bill Daley, and Jeffrey Immelt, among others, reflects a conscious and deliberate choice on the part of the Obama team to expand further in the direction of corporate liberalism, the very people who looted the economy and brought the economic crisis to the nation.
What I am arguing is that attacking our allies such as Richard Trumka, and fixating on Obama is not helpful.
The fall elections prove that to me.
This is my individual opinion, not necessarily the view of Talking Union.
Duane Campbell. Editorial Collective.
Talking Union. http://talkingunion.wordpress.comPosted by Duane Campbell on 2011-02-12 13:25:06

The Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of big business. Not interests of the working class.
Member companies are focused on the bottom line and profits. Moving manufacturing to a country that doesn't respect human rights or environmental standards rarely bothers big corporations. They are global and their loyalty is not to workers in the United States.
The National Nurses Union/California Nurse Association (CNA) and the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America (UE) did the right thing by protesting President Obama's visit the the Chamber of Commerce Headquarters. The AFL-CIO should have joined them in the protest.
In 1971, Lewis Powell, a corporate lawyer and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, wrote: “Attack on American Free Enterprise System,” for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (now called the Powell Memorandum).
Powell’s told the Chamber of Commerce to promote pro-business attitudes among young people and intellectuals, including by hiring sympathetic intellectuals as consultants and sponsoring their research; sponsor more research and aggressively communicate business points of view to the media; use paid advertisements to support the business system; ratchet up corporations’ political activity, including by forming political action committees and increasing campaign contributions; and work to influence judicial decisions and the judicial system.
It is time for AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka to put forward a tough, no-nonsense agenda to challenge the corporate vision of what our economy should be. The Obama administration will take labor for granted if Labor doesn't push its own sweeping agenda. Mr. Trumka, has nothing to loose and everything to gain.
Managing Editor
Multinational MonitorPosted by Multinational Monitor on 2011-02-12 10:44:20

First, I reject the absurd (though oft repeated) idea in the first comment that it was critics of Obama from the left that resulted in Republican victories in 2010. Those criticizing Obama from the left had very limited audiences and were certainly not read by the great mass of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but stayed home in 2010 because they saw their lives getting worse while he toadied to the banksters. Those of us on the left just don't have that much influence. In the two years that the Dems had the presidency and control of both houses of congress, they failed to do the things that they needed to do to improve the daily lives of average people who don't pay all that much attention to politics and certainly don't read left blogs. The voters punished them for that, which was entirely predictable.
Labor made a massive effort to elect Obama and has seen very little in return. And as long as labor continues to provide unconditional support to Democrats, they will continue to get very little in return.
The simple formulation, not original with me, is that politicians respond to the demands of those whose support is conditional. Labor has made it abundantly clear that we will support Democrats no matter how much they shit on us. So they have absolutely no reason to respond to our demands.
In partial defense of labor leaders like Trumka, the political spectrum has shifted so far to the right in recent years that it's pretty hard to find an alternative to the Dems. But until we find an alternative, or are willing to withhold support from politicians who shaft us, we will continue to get what we deserve.
A while back, I heard a union political director say this:
"The default position is to support the incumbent Democrat". Until that changes, we should expect no better than we have been getting.Posted by Chico David RN on 2011-02-11 21:35:42

How easily some folks are purchased - autoworkers favoring union cuts and then seeing the factories move overseas, and now the AFL-CIO getting infrastructure jobs, but neglecting the other 90% of workers. In bed with the devil that pays for the leadership mansions, big labor has become a big joke.Posted by Fred Donaldson on 2011-02-09 07:31:30

There are a number of problems with this letter. First, the writer identifies Ralph Nader as a voice in labor. I guess you neglect the history of Nader in the 2000 election and the role of labor.
Second, there is no evidence here of a split in labor. Only a difference in views. Nader suggests that Obama stop by the AFL-CIO on the way to the Chamber. Well, he did.
The current article on this site and the paper edition by Richard Flacks has more to say.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6857/beyond_barack_obama/
"Lefty focusing on Obama distracts us from the work we need to do.
What progressives have to try is to implement strategies that directly challenge corporate and financial domination.
Demands that might actually help people materially—and help the economy as well—need to be voiced and acted on—a massive mortgage write-down being one obvious example. Movement-based organizing on such issues needs to find targets that can be seen and addressed. For example, make locally accessible banks and their executives responsible for the mortgage crisis."
In my view, much Lefty focusing on Obama also distracts us from the work we need to do resisting the Republican onslaught from Washington to the states- Fostered by, and advanced, by the Republican victories in November. These victories were produced in part by some Lefties focusing on Obama instead of opposing the Right.Posted by Duane Campbell on 2011-02-08 21:25:44

About this Blog

"Working In These Times" is dedicated to providing independent and incisive coverage of the labor movement and the struggles of workers to obtain safe, healthy and just workplaces. more